Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60
He would be even better in today's watered down 30 team MLB. So many mediocre pitchers today in the majors that would have never seen the big leagues in Ruth's time. That more than makes up for the 8% of African Americans that were banned in Ruth's day or the modern day closers that Ruth might have to face one time in a game.
|
Could just be my math, but it seems that based on population that existed in Ruth's era, the talent was more watered down in 1920 than in 2010. In 1920 the US had a population of 106.5M while in 2010 had a population of 309.3M. There were 16 teams in 1920 with little to no minorities/foreign players involved while in 2010 30 teams participated with many nationalities represented. In 1920 0.000375% of the US population could occupy one of the 400 available MLB roster spots, while in 2010 0.000242% of the US population could occupy one of the 750 roster spots available. Another words, in 1920 a higher percent of the population would make a MLB roster than in 2010.
Bottom line is with MLB not adding teams as fast as the US population grows and the large number of foreign players currently playing, Ruth's era was far more watered down talent wise than today's era. Facing more evolved pitching strategies (relief pitching), physical training ,etc, might render Ruth a comparison to Adam Dunn in today's MLB.